a model for intentional change in...

A Model for Intentional Change in Organizations

Bernhard Bockelbrink

May 3, 2016

i

ii

Formatted for LATEXby MultiMarkdown

Contents

Contents iii

1 Introduction 1

2 A shared model for change in organizations 22.1 Change - adaptive or intentional? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 Tension, forces and pull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.4 Drivers - a systems perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.5 Domains of organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.6 Evolving organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 From tension to intentional change 113.1 Symptoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.2 Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.3 Cause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.4 Driver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.5 Responder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.6 Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.7 Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4 Closing 16

iii

Chapter 1

Introduction

Change in organizations is inevitable and happens naturally as organizations adapt to thevarious forces pulling at the organization, from the outside and from within.However, most of the changes that take place in organizations are neither intentional nor

aligned across the organization, they happen locally as a result of many small choices madeby many individuals.Lots of small and unrelated adaptive changes will lead to giving in to inertia (doing more

of the same) and entropy (many independent and unaligned decisions). This is the oppositeof intentional change - changing in an organized and aligned way.All organizations benefit from building capacity for intentional change in order to become

and remain effective.This paper presents a simple model for mapping influence of internal and external forces

to organizations, identifying motive for change and delegating accountability for plotting acourse of action, and finally incrementally implementing the resulting change.

1

Chapter 2

A shared model for change inorganizations

2.1 Change - adaptive or intentional?

A change is anything happening in the (outside) world, or in our heads (our model of theworld) that affects the working of an organization, usually as a result of one or more externalor internal forces pulling at an organization.For many organization, most of the change they undergo is adaptive change - continuous

change of a system as the result of its members individually reacting to the pull of internaland external forces.Adaptive change has two main sources: inertia and entropy. Inertia is the result of people

doing things they way they’re used to doing them, the combined effect of individual habitsand organizational culture which keeps an organizations moving into a certain direction.Entropy is the result of individual and unaligned responses to a problem or challenge, thisintroduces an element of randomness to an organization’s operation. The sum of countlesssmall local fixes and patches to an organization’s behavior has a substantial effect on theorganization as a whole.Intentional change in a system happens when all members affected by change under-

stand context and motivation, agree on direction, and collaborate on change.It’s an enormous effort to intentionally change an organization, and in many organizations

big change initiatives are not particularly successful.A large intentional change needs to be aligned across an organizations, so it’s essential for

success that all members of an organization are both enabled and empowered to effectivelycontribute to and collaborate on that change. To that end, members do not only needto understand motive and nature of the intended change, they also greatly benefit fromsharing a common model for thinking about organizations1 and working withchange.The more members share same mental models about organizations and change, the greater

is an organization’s capacity for intentional change.

1and especially about organizational structure and the way organizations develop and grow

2

CHAPTER 2. A SHARED MODEL FOR CHANGE IN ORGANIZATIONS 3

Figure 2.1: The pull of intentional change vs. adaptive change

2.2 Organizations

An organization is any group of people organized for a particular purpose and around ashared motive (see Drivers - a systems perspective (section 2.4)). This may a band of threekids rehearsing in a garage, or a multinational enterprise.Any organization is a human system, i.e. a network of individuals or of circles (or groups)

of individuals. Human systems are interdependent and may overlap, i.e. they may sharemembers with other systems. Often a human system contains subsystems, which are againinterdependent and potentially overlapping, e.g. in an organization there are departments,units, teams, tribes, or communities of practices. A special case of a subsystem is a role.Whether or not an organization is effective depends on how well the members of the orga-

nization are able to “organize” or orchestrate their collaboration towards the organization’spurpose, i.e. the members’ capacity of both making good agreements, and of fulfilling them.In order to understand how organizations operate and change over time it’s helpful to

consider three specific aspects of an organization:


Figure 2.2: Subsystems within an organization

1. the system designed for collaboration: an organization can be viewed as the thebody of all agreements about collaboration, including the structure of departments,teams and roles created for collaboration within the domain of the organization, andthe agreed upon connections and interactions between them.

2. the flow of value: the networks of individual members of the organization andtheir interactions while actually contributing to the flow of value (within the domainof the organization), including but not limited to “official” projects and "unofficial”collaboration

3. a system of subjects to forces: a network of groups or individuals subject tovarious forces pulling at the organization, and responding to that pull.

Many organizations invest a lot of time in maintaining organizational structure and pro-cedures which are not particularly helpful for the flow of value. In an effective organizationthe system for collaboration is created in alignment to the forces pulling at the or-ganization, which results in the system being mostly identical to the actual network ofindividuals and their interactions, i.e. the org chart mirrors what is actually happening,and both value and information flow as intended. In this state, an organizations members


Figure 2.3: Three views on an organization

are doing their best to adhere to the system for collaboration, and evolve the system assoon as they see it’s no longer fit for purpose.

2.3 Tension, forces and pull

An organization, as any human system, is subject to the pull of various forces which attemptto change the system.Tension is the effect of multiple forces simultaneously pulling at a system. Ten-

sion often manifests itself as uncertainty: challenges, problems, risk or opportunities.A tension can be understood and explained in terms of forces pulling at the system

itself or a subsystem, within a certain context (e.g. explained through specific conditionsor actors).A force is any influence with the perceived ability to influence an organization. Forces

may be needs of individuals within the system, needs of the system itself (or ofa subsystem), or external forces (which may, again, be needs of individuals or othersystems).An organization’s members experience symptoms or effects of tension, and sometimes

the subjective experience of a tension turns out to be a misconception. The tension itself,however, is not merely a subjective experience, the forces at play may very well be strongenough to destroy an organization.


Figure 2.4: Forces pulling at an organization

Table 2.1: Examples for external forces pulling at organizations

External forces

pull of market and competitorscompliance to regulation or legislationrequirement of customers and user needneeds of the environmentneeds of member’s families and communitiesneeds of the community around an organization

Table 2.2: Examples for internal forces pulling at organizations

Internal forces

organizational culture (shared assumptions orchosen values)members’ needs (shared or individual)b

individual member’s values and mental modelsentropy (local and unaligned responses totension)inertia

ae.g. need for autonomy, mastery, purpose, relatedness, security or happinessbe.g. need for autonomy, mastery, purpose, relatedness, security or happiness


There’s two possible responses to pull: individually adapting to pull (adaptive change),or collaborating on discovering motive and then an orchestrating an appropriate response(intentional change).Each force has a circle of influence - the members of an organization who are directly

affected by the pull.

Figure 2.5: Circle of influence is subject to pull of various forces within a specific context

Identifying the root cause: Often what is perceived as a tension can be revealed to be onlya symptom of another tension, the forces at play merely being symptoms or consequencesof other forces. In that case the circle of influence is just part of a much larger circle. It’sessential to try and discover the root cause of a tension, otherwise it may be impossible torespond to that tension effectively. One indicator for organizations dealing with symptomsinstead of root causes is similar tensions appearing again and again across the organization.

2.4 Drivers - a systems perspective

A driver for an organization or one of its subsystems is the motive why the system wouldwant to respond to a specific tension. Being clear about the driver helps determine whatconstitutes an adequate response to a tension.


Drivers can be argued, i.e. for each driver there’s reasons why a system would respondto a tension - the needs2 or requirements of a system to resolve tension ("this is adriver because. . . ”).The primary driver of a (sub-)system is the motive why this system has been created

in the first place. There is a primary driver for an organization, and and a primary driverfor each of its subsystem. All drivers within an organization must be aligned to the primarydriver of the organization itself, and to all drivers it is nested within.Organizational drivers are best described as the combination of a tension and the motive

to respond. Sometimes the tension is obvious or implicit. Since each driver only exists inrelationship to a specific tension, if the tension is resolved, the driver also ceases to exist.

Table 2.3: Relationships of drivers

Relationship Explanation

nested the subdriver is a consequence or symptom ofthe superdriver

compound one driver is a combination or a set of severalother drivers

independent independent drivers are unrelated(inter-)dependent drivers that influence each other, but are not

necessarily nestedshared drivers drivers that are shared between two or more

systems, e.g. along a value chain

Figure 2.6: Shred Drivers

2To clarify the relationship of individual needs and the needs of the system: The needs of individualsmay be forces contributing to a tension, but the system might have a motive to satisfy the needs of anindividual in order to enable or sustain the individual’s contribution to the organization.


2.5 Domains of organizations

A domain34 is the area of (semi-)autonomy and accountability of a an organizationor one of it’s subsystems (i.e. a circle or a role) in response to its primary driver. In otherwords, it’s the sphere of activity and concern of a system, the area (or field) of work thesystem is accountable for.The domain of the organization is the area of concern of the entire organization, which

is defined and agreed upon in relation to the organization’s primary driver.The whole organization, and each of its subsystems - circles and roles - have their distinct

domains. Each domain benefits from clear boundaries and requires the capacity for effectiveresponse to its primary driver.The level of autonomy of a subsystem is a consequence of the relationship of the sub-

system’s domain to that of other subsystems: Domains may be nested within each other(a subdomain inside a superdomain, e.g. one development team in a development unit),independent from one another (e.g. an organizations’s cleaning services and IT services),or interdependent. i.e. overlapping, but not nested.

2.6 Evolving organizations

Here’s a simple model how organizations can intentionally address tensions within area ofconcern: by first determining the motive to respond, and then delegating the response to(semi-)autonomous subsystems.

Figure 2.7: Intentional change

Many of the new drivers that are discovered in an organization fall into an existingdomain and thus are simply addressed by the corresponding subsystem. This is part of the

3In the context of an agreement, we refer to the scope of the agreement, rather than the “domain”4In this context, domain is used only in the meanings of “sphere of activity, concern, or function, field”,

and “sphere of influence”. It does neither refer to a part of an organization (i.e. a department, resort orteam), a field of knowledge, the expertise or interest of a person, or a distinctive group of people with someshared interest.


normal operation of any organization. But sometimes an emerging driver can’t be addressedeffectively by the present organizational structure, so the organization needs to evolve torespond to that driver by either adapting the domains of existing subsystems, or throughcreation of a new one.

1. Creating a new subsystem: The new driver becomes the primary driver for thenew subsystem, and a new domain is defined, which needs to allow for an effectiveresponse to the driver without creating unnecessary side-effects5, so it also should takeinto account existing subsystems and their domains.

2. Adapting existing subsystems: Sometimes the simplest way to respond to a newdriver is by extending an existing domain - the previous primary driver and the newdriver becoming a compound driver for the corresponding subsystems. Other possi-bilities include moving shared services into a dedicated subsystem, or adding morecapacity to a function by turning a role into a circle.

5Since each new subsystem adds complexity to an organization, it brings the potential of tension withexisting subsystems, e.g. a conflict over resources, or the need for coordination.

Chapter 3

From tension to intentional change

Let’s now take a closer look at what needs to happen to develop an organization by inten-tionally responding to tensions within the organization’s domain.Here’s a map of all the steps that need to be taken from the discovery of a tension to

taking action. Some steps may be implicit, and often steps are re-visited as new informationemerges.Steps 1 and 2 are taken by the individual or circle discovering the tension, steps 3–5 take

place in the circle of influence of a tension, and 6–8 are handled in the circle of executionthe response is delegated to, which is a subset of the circle of influence.

3.1 Symptoms

What can we observe? What are the effects?Symptoms of a tension may be noticed by an individual, or discovered by a group, e.g.

in retrospectives, stand-ups, governance meetings, or any other meeting.The first step is listing symptoms, the observable effects of a tensions, which will help

identify where a tensions needs to be processed. These symptoms will later be used by thecircle of influence for discovering and understanding the actual tension.

3.2 Influence

Who in the organization is affected by the tension?All the people inside the organization affected by a tension form the circle of influence

of that tension.The circle of influence is accountable for:

1. understanding the tension or revealing the misconception

2. identifying the driver to respond to the tension

3. delegating the response

4. the outcome of the response

Sometimes, e.g. when a tension affects an entire organization, the circle of influence isvery large, so the act of navigation can (and should) be delegated to a subset of that circle.

11

CHAPTER 3. FROM TENSION TO INTENTIONAL CHANGE 12

Figure 3.1: From tension to intentional change


Often it’s clear who is affected by a tension by looking at the symptoms, however, some-times it may be necessary to first identify the forces at play (see step 3).After the circle of influence has been identified, the tension is taken to circle of influence

to make the decision whether or not to respond, and where to delegate the response to. Ifthe circle of influence is a permanent circle, the tension may simply be added as an agendaitem for the governance meeting. Otherwise a dedicated meeting or workshop for processingthe tension needs to be scheduled.

3.3 Cause

What is the tension? (Forces and context)In order of determine whether or not to respond to a tension, and who is needed for re-

sponding effectively, the circle of influence first needs to understand the tension and identifyits source, or root cause.The following questions generate insights relevant to understanding a tension as a system

of forces in a certain context:

• What are the different forces?

• What are they pulling at?

• What is the cause of these forces?

• Who are the actors involved?

• What are the relevant conditions?

• Who is affected by the tension?

Often in this step a circle reveals misconceptions about the tension, its forces, symptomsor its root cause.

3.4 Driver

Why do we respond?The driver describes the motive for responding to the tension, it is explained and argued

form the perspective of the organization or one of its subsystems in relation to the effects/symptoms of the tension at hand.The circle of influence may decide to ignore the tension, or defer it for later review, e.g.

by scheduling a follow-up meeting with the entire circle, or delegating accountability for thereview to a role or circle.Ignoring or deferring the tension may result in adaptive change.

3.5 Responder

Who should respond?After the driver is understood, the next step is delegating accountability to respond to

the driver and resolve the tension.


The driver is delegated to the circle of execution1. This is either an existing subsystemif (a) a tension is clearly inside the domain of that subsystem, or (b) it appears reasonableto extend the domain of that subsystem. Otherwise a new subsystem is created to respondthe the driver.If delegation is not a straightforward process, the circle of influence can create a (tempo-

rary) role or circle with the function to assess the situation, propose a course of action tothe circle of influence, and, if necessary, oversee the creation of a new subsystem2.When delegating to an existing subsystem, sometimes it’s necessary to extend the capacity

of that subsystem, e.g. by adding new members to a circle, training people for new skills,or adding more monthly hours to a role. Creating a new domain increases complexity ofthe organization and may subsequently lead to additional tensions.To identify the circle of execution, ask the following questions:

• Where can we respond effectively?

• What knowledge, resources and skills are required?

The circle of execution3 is those the response to the tension is delegated to, theyextend the circle of influence, because they are affected by the tension when they work onon resolving it.The circle of influence is accountable for both the delegation, and for the outcome (i.e.

the result of the delegation). This implies that circle of execution needs to be transparentto the circle of influence so progress can be observed.

3.6 Strategy

What is the plan, and how do we organize to respond?For a new subsystem, or for a driver that requires a non-obvious response, it is helpful to

outline a strategy, i.e. the general approach of the response, which is then implementedand refined along the way.The strategy is co-created by the circle of execution, e.g. through proposal forming, in a

kickoff workshop, or any creative format that seems appropriate, and subsequently reportedback to the circle of influence.A strategy explains the form of the response, the outline of a plan, and the intended

outcome to evaluate the strategy against, as well as a list of essential agreements aboutcollaboration (guidelines, methods used etc.) to successfully implement the strategy. Foran existing circle or role, the strategy might include amendments to existing agreements.The strategy needs to be just good enough to get started and run safely, depending on

the driver, it explains either how to respond to the driver, or how to go about identifyingthe appropriate response.In the first case the strategy may be a rough explanation of a guideline or task, the outline

and intended outcome of a project or a high-level description of a product or service.In the second case the strategy might contain a plan how to identify the appropriate

response, a workshop format, research to be completed, and criteria for a successful outcome.

1the circle of execution may be only one person2e.g. finding or recruiting members for a circle, facilitation of selection to a role etc.3the circle of execution may be only one person


Table 3.1: Various forms of responses to a tension

Responses to tension

a single taskchange or update of existing strategy oragreementguideline or plan for collaborationproject (a series of tasks and an intendedoutcome)product (result or goods createdservice (assistance, continuously or on demand)

3.7 Response

Experiment. Evaluate. Evolve.An effective response to a tension needs at least to reduce effects of tension, or resolve the

tension altogether. Especially for the more complex or challenging tensions - those whereintentional change will bring the greatest benefit for an organization - an effective responsecannot be designed beforehand, as it is not clear from the beginning how the organizationitself and its environment would react to the planned response.Therefore, identifying and implementing an effective response is an iterative and empirical

process. It’s best to consider the response to a tension as an experiment, to evaluate theoutcome and then update the experiment with what has been learned. As more informationbecomes available, it will also sometimes be necessary to update the strategy.But this incremental approach is also helpful for many other decisions an organization

or one of its subsystems is facing. It prevents analysis paralysis and instead empowers themembers of an organization to embrace change and create a learning organization.

Chapter 4

Closing

When all members of an organization share the same mental model for developing theorganization, it’s so much easier to communicate where the organization should go, andhow to best collaborate on taking it there together. Growing an organization is hard, butspeaking the same language is a great first step for making it happen.This model for intentional change in organizations builds on Sociocracy 3.0 (S3), a frame-

work of more than 60 patterns for evolving agile organizations. You will find many helpfulresources about S3 at http://sociocracy30.org.

16

http://sociocracy30.org

a model for intentional change in...

Documents